High Court asked to pay Rs 6 lakh to petitioner
THE LUCKNOW Bench of the High Court has held the High Court administration ?vicariously liable? for the lapses committed by its employee. It has directed the High Court at Allahabad to pay Rs 6 lakh to the petitioner Kaushal Hari Narayan.india Updated: Apr 27, 2006 01:22 IST
THE LUCKNOW Bench of the High Court has held the High Court administration “vicariously liable” for the lapses committed by its employee. It has directed the High Court at Allahabad to pay Rs 6 lakh to the petitioner Kaushal Hari Narayan.
The Bench, comprising Justice Pradeep Kant and Justice K.S.Rakhra, passed the above orders, while allowing a writ petition filed by Narayan.
The High Court had earlier directed the State Government to deposit Rs 2 lakh in the High Court. The High Court, in turn, was directed to reinvest the money in an interest-paying scheme. The money was to be ultimately given to the petitioner on the final disposal of the said writ petition.
On account of lapses on the part of an employee of the High Court, the said amount, however, could not be reinvested in any interest paying scheme. As a result, the money remained static. It would have earned an interest of nearly Rs 3 lakh had the money been reinvested in an interest paying scheme.
The Lucknow Bench of the High Court accordingly directed the High Court administration to pay Rs 6 lakh to the petitioner with a further direction to the State Government to reimburse the said amount to the High Court within a month.
The Bench further directed that no action shall be taken against the erring employee.
Man accused of offering bribe sent to jail: Bhupendra Sharma, accused of offering bribe to former additional principal judge, Family Court, Vishram Singh, was sent to jail till May 9 next by the district judge here on Wednesday.
According to prosecution Rama Kapil alias Mahima, Bhupendra’s wife had filed a maintenance suit against him, which was pending before Singh when he was posted here as the APJ Family Court.
The application for interim maintenance was fixed for hearing on August 22, 2005. The judge received a courier on August 20, 2005 which contained a draft of 5,000 and a letter by Bhupendra requesting him to pass the order in his favour and dismiss his wife’s petition.
The judge informed the SSP Lucknow on August 24, who directed for registration of FIR. Police was investigating the case. Mahima’s case came up for hearing on Tuesday when Bhupendra also came to the court. Police arrested him near the court. He was produced before district judge SS Sharma who sent him to jail under the provisions of Prevention Of Corruption Act.